A Civil Court has jurisdiction to determine whether a Tribunal created by a statute has acted within its own limitations, and if the Tribunal abuses its power or acts in violation of the statute, the Civil Court can intervene.

R. N. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF has appealed against the affirming judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Jeypore upholding dismissal of his suit for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF alleged that he had purchased 86 decimals of land out of plot No. 57 in Mauza Kaki under a registered sale deed dated 28-11-1970 (Ext. 2) for a consideration of Rs. 2,580/- after obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act from one Dalapati Hantal. Dalapati had purchased the property from Hadi Hantal and laxman Hantal in Feb. , 1969. Plaintiff has remained in possession of the property following his acquisition and had constructed an asbestos-roofed house thereon. On 14-4-1972, the Additional Tahsildar of Sunabeda initiated a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, on the allegation that the land in question had already been acquired under the land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) by the State Government of Orissa and notwithstanding the objection of the plaintiff, directed his eviction on the footing that plaintiff was an encroacher. Plaintiff tried to obtain relief under the statute, but since his appeal and revision were dismissed, he was obliged to institute the suit. According to him, the land is not "government property" within the definition of the Encroachment Act and as such the proceeding was not maintainable. It may be stated that the proceeding was in respect of 8 decimals out of the 86 decimals purchased by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) IN its written statement, the defendant pleaded that the land belonged to one Raghunath Hantal and he died leaving behind his daughter Padma. The 92 decimals of land belonging to Raghunath Hantal including the disputed property was notified for acquisition. A dispute arose as to who was the proper person to be compensated and the matter was referred to the Court of the Subordinate judge, Jeypore, in M. J. C. No. 109 of 1964 under Section 30 of the Land acquisition Act. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the land was the separate property of Raghunath Hantal and Hadi Hantal had no title over it. Plaintiff's vendor had never acquired any title to the property and plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to declaration of his title. The construction of the house by the plaintiff is an encroachment after the acquisition and plaintiff is not entitled to protection. The land encroachment proceeding had been rightly initiated as the disputed property was Government land and plaintiff was an encroacher,

( 4 ) SEVERAL issues were raised and the learned trial Judge came to hold that the plaintiff had no title and the disputed property was a part of the land acquired by the State for the purpose of the Central Government, i. e. the MIG factory at sunabeda and plaintiff had, therefore, no cause of action for instituting the suit. The learned Appellate Judge affirmed the finding that Hadi Hantal, the vendor had no title. Possession of Hadi Hantal and Dalapati Hantal as also of plaintiff was unuthorised and plaintiff was a mere trespasser. Plaintiff was not entitled to claim possessory title. He, however, came to hold that there was no evidence that the State Government had taken over possession of the property in the land acquisition proceeding. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE second appeal was placed before our learned brother Das, J. who referred the matter to a larger Bench for considering the question of maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions contained in the Orissa prevention of Land Encroachment Act. That is how this appeal is before us.

( 6 ) THE finding that plaintiff has acquired no title appears to have become final as learned counsel for the appellant does not ask us to take a different view. It is contended that the learned Appellate Judge failed to appreciate the clai